As the famous critique goes, “Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good”:

1.“He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct,” Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.2.“It is not newsworthy,” Daniel Murphy, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cloud researcher, wrote in an email to LiveScience.3.NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth in an email: “I have read the paper. I can not believe it got published. Maybe it got through because it is not in a journal that deals with atmospheric science much?”4.Trenberth and John Fasullo at RealClimate: “The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper.”

The whole blog post linked to above for further refutations of Spencer's 'work'*.

*I use the term 'work' instead of the proper description "the creation of a flight of fancy that manages to match current data while making non-current predictions that are physically impossible".

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.